نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• احسان یاوری ¹
• جواد ریاحی ²
• ابوالفضل سلیمانی ³

¹ استادیارگروه حقوق دانشگاه آیت الله بروجردی، بروجرد، ایران.

² استادیار گروه حقوق دانشگاه آیت الله بروجردی، بروجرد، ایران.

³ دانشجوی دکتری حقوق دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد خوراسگان، اصفهان، ایران.

چکیده

مقنن در قانون مجازات اسلامی مصوب ۱۳۹۲، صرف ارتکاب بزه را موجب کیفر ندانسته و در ماده ۱۴۰ قانون فوق‌الذکر مقرر می‌دارد: «مسئولیت کیفری در حدود، قصاص و تعزیرات تنها زمانی محقق است که فرد حین ارتکاب جرم عاقل، بالغ و مختار باشد...». این در حالیست که بررسی اجزای تشکیل دهنده رکن معنوی و مادی بزه به وضوح نشان دهنده این مطلب است که تحقق عناصر مزبور در گرو شرایط سه گانه مذکور در ماده 140 می‌باشد، به گونه‌ای که با فقدان هر یک از این شرایط، رکنی از ارکان وقوع بزه مخدوش و به تبع آن بزه‌ای توسط مرتکب به وقوع نخواهد پیوست. حال اگر بدون تحقق عناصر سه گانه امکان وقوع بزه و تحمیل کیفر نیست، می‌توان ادعا نمود آن‌چه که پدید آورنده مسئولیت کیفری است، همان اجزای تشکیل دهنده ارکان اصلی بزه است. بنابراین، مقاله حاضر بر آن است تا با روش توصیفی - تحلیلی ضمن بررسی و نقد دیدگاه­های مختلف، ادعای مذکور را ثابت نماید که در نهایت ضمن اثبات ادعای پیش گفته این نتیجه حاصل شود که جهت تحمیل بار مسئولیت کیفری و به تبع آن تحمیل کیفر بر مرتکب، احراز و وجود شرایط دیگری غیر از اثبات وجود عناصر سه گانه بزه، ضروری نمی­باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• اختیار
• بلوغ
• رکن معنوی
• عقل
• مسئولیت کیفری

موضوعات

• حقوق کیفری عمومی و اختصاصی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis of the Conceptual Relationship between the Conditions of Criminal Responsibility and the Elements of Crime Occurrence in the Iranian Criminal Justice System

نویسندگان [English]

• Ehsan Yavari ¹
• Javad Riahi ²
• Abolfazl Soleimani ³

¹ Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Ayatollah Boroujerdi University, Boroujerd, Iran.

² Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Ayatollah Boroujerdi University, Boroujerd, Iran.

³ PhD student, Department of Law, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan Branch, Isfahan, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Problem Statement and Literature Review
One of the fundamental debates in criminal law is elucidating the relationship between the conditions of criminal responsibility and the constituent elements of crime. According to Article 140 of the Islamic Penal Code adopted in 2013, criminal responsibility in Hodud (fixed punishments), Qisas (retribution), and Ta'zirat (discretionary punishments) is realized only if the perpetrator was sane, adult (reached the age of legal responsibility), and acting of their own free will at the time of committing the crime. The legislator has introduced these three elements as "conditions of criminal responsibility." However, a detailed examination of the material and mental elements of crime clearly demonstrates that the realization of these elements itself requires the existence of these same three conditions; in such a way that the absence of any of them undermines one of the pillars of the crime, and fundamentally, no crime is committed.
This issue has been examined from various perspectives in previous research. Jafari (2022), emphasizing the theory of the crime being composed of two pillars, considered the causal relationship as an independent component alongside the elements of crime. Gholami (2013), by distinguishing between "criminal capacity" and "commission of a crime," regarded factors negating capacity as obstacles to criminal responsibility. Ghamashi (2024), by providing a broad definition of fault, classified obstacles to responsibility among the impediments to the realization of fault and the crime itself. Furthermore, Milani and Abdolkarimi (2015), by accepting the two-pillar theory of crime, justified the possibility of establishing criminal responsibility without fault in specific cases. The lack of research that addresses this issue with an integrated approach, emphasizing the fundamental role of sanity, adulthood, and free will in the realization of the elements of crime, highlights the necessity of the present study.
Research Objective
The present study aims to elucidate the logical connection between the three conditions of criminal responsibility (sanity, adulthood, and free will) and the constituent elements of crime, and to prove the claim that what gives rise to criminal responsibility is solely the components forming the main elements of the crime, and establishing conditions beyond proving the three elements of the crime is unnecessary for imposing criminal responsibility. This research seeks to critique the prevailing views that consider these conditions as external to the elements of crime and demonstrate that sanity, adulthood, and free will function not as independent and subsequent conditions, but as prerequisites for the realization of the elements of crime (particularly the mental element and the attributability of the material element).
Methodology
This research employed a descriptive-analytical method using library and documentary sources. Initially, through a detailed examination of legal provisions, especially the Islamic Penal Code adopted in 2013, the concept of criminal responsibility and its conditions were analyzed. Subsequently, by studying and critiquing the opinions and theories of jurists in this field, the relationship between the aforementioned conditions and the elements of crime was scrutinized. In this process, an attempt was made, with a granular approach and by separating the components of the mental element (including knowledge of the subject, knowledge of the law, will, and criminal intent), to explain the fundamental role of sanity, adulthood, and free will in the realization of each of these components.
Findings
The investigations conducted reveal that:

Sanity and adulthood act as prerequisites for the formation of criminal intent and knowledge of the subject of the crime; without them, the mental element of the crime is not realized. An individual lacking sanity or adulthood lacks the necessary capacity for the formation of criminal intent.
Free will is an essential condition for attributing the material element of the crime to the perpetrator. In cases lacking free will (such as duress, coercion, necessity, or instantaneous insanity), the material element of the crime is either not attributable to the perpetrator at all or must be attributed to a more influential factor (such as the coercer).
Concepts such as duress, insanity, minority, and severe mental disorders, contrary to the traditional view that considers them merely as "factors negating responsibility," are in fact factors that undermine the elements of the crime.
In provisions such as Articles 151 and 153 of the Islamic Penal Code, by using the phrase "shall not be punished" (and not "a crime is not committed"), the legislator has incorrectly considered the absence of responsibility conditions merely as a cause for non-application of punishment, whereas in these cases, a crime has fundamentally not occurred.

Conclusion
The analyses conducted in this research confirm that sanity, adulthood, and free will, despite being mentioned in Article 140 of the Islamic Penal Code as "conditions of criminal responsibility," actually play a foundational and fundamental role in the realization of the elements of crime. Without these three conditions, the mental and material elements of the crime remain undermined, and essentially, no crime is established to necessitate the examination of criminal responsibility. Therefore, the traditional perception of these concepts as conditions external to the elements of crime leads to fallacies in criminal analysis and sometimes to unjust verdicts. Accordingly, it is proposed that the legislator, in revising Article 140, replace the term "conditions of criminal responsibility" with "necessary conditions for the realization of the elements of crime," or at least explicitly state that these conditions should be considered in the analysis of the material and mental elements of crime. It is also essential for judicial authorities to examine these three conditions prior to the final determination of the crime, not after it. This conceptual and procedural reform could be considered an important step towards criminal justice and a more accurate interpretation of penal laws.
By identifying the theoretical gap in distinguishing between the conditions for the realization of a crime and the conditions for criminal responsibility, this research presents a novel analytical model that can serve as a basis for legislative revision and judicial practice. An important achievement of this study is providing a coherent framework for classifying factors negating a crime into two groups: "factors undermining the mental element" (such as insanity and minority) and "factors undermining the attributability of the material element" (such as duress and necessity), which, while resolving theoretical ambiguities, facilitates the practical application of legal provisions for judges.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Volition
• Maturity
• Mental Element
• Sanity
• Criminal Responsibility